Denial-of-service tool targeting Healthcare.gov site discovered

Hacktivist software designed to put a strain on struggling Obamacare website.

Researchers have uncovered software available on the Internet designed to overload the struggling Healthcare.gov website with more traffic than it can handle.

"ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people," a screenshot from the tool, which was acquired by researchers at Arbor Networks, declares. "We HAVE the right to CIVIL disobedience!"

In a blog post published Thursday, Arbor researcher Marc Eisenbarth said there's no evidence Healthcare.gov has been subjected to any significant denial-of-service attacks since going live last month. He also said the limited request rate, the lack of significant distribution, and other features of the tool's underlying code made it unlikely that it could play a significant role in taking down the site. The tool is designed to put a strain on the site by repeatedly alternating requests to the https://www.healthcare.gov and https:www.healthcare.gov/contact-us addresses. If enough requests are made over a short period of time, it can overload some of the "layer 7" applications that the site relies on to make timely responses.

The screenshot below shows some of the inner workings of the unnamed tool.

The tool fits a pattern seen in the previous years of hacktivist software available for download that's customized to take on a specific cause or support a particular ideology.

"ASERT has seen site specific denial of service tools in the past related to topics of social or political interest," Eisenbarth wrote, referring to the Arbor Security Engineering and Response Team. "This application continues a trend ASERT is seeing with denial of service attacks being used as a means of retaliation against a policy, legal rulings or government actions."

The full text of the screenshot reads:

Destroy Obama Care.

This program continually displays alternate page of the ObamaCare website. It has no virus, trojans, worms, or cookies.

The purpose is to overload the ObamaCare website, to deny service to users and perhaps overload and crash the system.

You can open as many copies of the program as you want. Each copy opens multiple links to the site.

ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people. We HAVE the right to CIVIL disobedience!

Of course, there's no way of knowing who wrote and posted the tool, which has been mentioned on social media sites. It's certainly possible that it's the work of critics of President Obama's healthcare legislation. But until we learn more, there's no way to rule out the possibility that it was developed by an Obamacare supporter with the hope of discrediting critics.

Promoted Comments

If this is indeed on the level and was developed by anti-ACA folks, then I feel sorry for them, for they clearly missed or misunderstood the history lesson on civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws, regulations, or government orders. If these opponents want to engage in civil disobediance against Obamacare, then don't sign up for health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty. But trying to take down the site to prevent others from willingly engaging in it is not the answer. In other words, you boycott the bus service that forces you to sit in the back -- you don't slash the tires and piss in the engine so that others can't ride it too.

If this is indeed on the level and was developed by anti-ACA folks, then I feel sorry for them, for they clearly missed or misunderstood the history lesson on civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws, regulations, or government orders. If these opponents want to engage in civil disobediance against Obamacare, then don't sign up for health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty. But trying to take down the site to prevent others from willingly engaging in it is not the answer. In other words, you boycott the bus service that forces you to sit in the back -- you don't slash the tires and piss in the engine so that others can't ride it too.

I respectfully disagree. Protest is not only about informing the oppressor but informing the oppressor's consumers. Civil disobedience also includes sit ins (workplaces and diners) e.g. Informing the patrons of a diner of the inequality transgressions.

If you don't disrupt the healthcare transactions now then their is a lost opportunity to inform the public that the mandate is forcing people to purchase a service that is their right to go with out.

For the record I'm in favor of single payer healthcare but that does not mean that we should not address the protestors legitimate concerns about the mandate.

I think Henry David Thoreau would disagree with you. There's protesting and there's civil disobedience. I wouldn't term a hacktivist group hitting a loathsome organization like RIAA or MPAA with a DDoS attack as an act of civil disobedience, but I think it could be called a protest. This may seem like arguing pointless semantics, but it's not -- civil disobedience, according to Thoreau's reading, is different kind of protest, i.e. refusing to pay taxes to a government that supports slavery rather than attacking/protesting the people who own the slaves.

If this is indeed on the level and was developed by anti-ACA folks, then I feel sorry for them, for they clearly missed or misunderstood the history lesson on civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws, regulations, or government orders. If these opponents want to engage in civil disobediance against Obamacare, then don't sign up for health insurance and refuse to pay the penalty. But trying to take down the site to prevent others from willingly engaging in it is not the answer. In other words, you boycott the bus service that forces you to sit in the back -- you don't slash the tires and piss in the engine so that others can't ride it too.

I respectfully disagree. Protest is not only about informing the oppressor but informing the oppressor's consumers. Civil disobedience also includes sit ins (workplaces and diners) e.g. Informing the patrons of a diner of the inequality transgressions.

If you don't disrupt the healthcare transactions now then their is a lost opportunity to inform the public that the mandate is forcing people to purchase a service that is their right to go with out.

For the record I'm in favor of single payer healthcare but that does not mean that we should not address the protestors legitimate concerns about the mandate.

No. The second you go from simply expressing your view to actively preventing others from doing what they wish to do, you have ceased to be a protestor. Anyone using this is NOT engaging in any "civil disobedience", but in active sabotage, and should be treated as such. You do NOT have any right whatsoever to disrupt anyone else's transactions, regardless of how you feel about the law.

I don't agree with the act or the Act, but how is this any different than a sit-in?

A sit in doesn't disrupt my ability to make commerce with the proprietor of the store. And the people that participate in sit ins have their names and faces out there, and are willing to be arrested. The idiot behind this tool has done no such thing.

Some sit-ins blocked access to public roads and blocked customer access to businesses. But the part about "making yourself subject to arrest" I agree with.

481 Reader Comments

I don't see it as "you're forced to buy a policy simply because you're alive".

I see it as "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me".

Doesn't this mean I, as someone who has had health insurance, should be paying significantly less once ACA goes into effect, as I will no longer be paying for those things?

I think that is a very good point. But the fact is, neither our premiums are going down, and certainly our taxes (which previously supported these costs) are not going down. Where is the outrage over THAT?

We have already been over this. There are many people that are required to drive in order to live so for them it is not an option similar to this. If you wanted to extrapolate your logic further and insist that driving is a choice then so is purchasing healthcare, you could always leave the country and not purchase it.

Yes we've been over this. I stipulate that for some people, they have no choice but to drive and for them car insurance is not an option.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM -- get it?

I'm talking about people who take public transportation. Are you willing to stipulate that such persons do in fact exist? Are you further willing to stipulate that because they don't drive, they DON'T have to buy car insurance?

THAT is the choice that is missing in the health insurance debate. And as mentioned above, the option to "leave the country" is no more reasonable now than when Conservatives said it in the 60s and 70s about the Vietnam War.

We have already been over this. There are many people that are required to drive in order to live so for them it is not an option similar to this. If you wanted to extrapolate your logic further and insist that driving is a choice then so is purchasing healthcare, you could always leave the country and not purchase it.

Yes we've been over this. I stipulate that for some people, they have no choice but to drive and for them car insurance is not an option.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM -- get it?

I'm talking about people who take public transportation. Are you willing to stipulate that such persons do in fact exist? Are you further willing to stipulate that because they don't drive, they DON'T have to buy car insurance?

lets see if i can do my thoughts justice in words.

public transportation is paid for by taxes that you pay to the state/town/county/etc(plus whatever is left over, normally a small fee to actually sit on the bus... lets call it the copay).i dont use public transportation so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

healthcare is paid for by either your insurance premiums(plus whatever is left over to actually be charged to you, also called the copay) or is paid for by taxes if you do not have insurance.I dont pay for health insurance, so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

but i pay the portion of taxes that go towards public transportation, so why shouldnt you pay the tax for the portion that goes towards healthcare?

We have already been over this. There are many people that are required to drive in order to live so for them it is not an option similar to this. If you wanted to extrapolate your logic further and insist that driving is a choice then so is purchasing healthcare, you could always leave the country and not purchase it.

Yes we've been over this. I stipulate that for some people, they have no choice but to drive and for them car insurance is not an option.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM -- get it?

I'm talking about people who take public transportation. Are you willing to stipulate that such persons do in fact exist? Are you further willing to stipulate that because they don't drive, they DON'T have to buy car insurance?

THAT is the choice that is missing in the health insurance debate. And as mentioned above, the option to "leave the country" is no more reasonable now than when Conservatives said it in the 60s and 70s about the Vietnam War.

No. The choice is just as much there as it is for the people who, essentially, must drive.

I don't see it as "you're forced to buy a policy simply because you're alive".

I see it as "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me".

Doesn't this mean I, as someone who has had health insurance, should be paying significantly less once ACA goes into effect, as I will no longer be paying for those things?

It could mean that in some world where the only change was "more people paying into the system".

There are, however, changes beyond "more people paying into the system". The whole thing involves a bunch of messy compromises (without which it may not have been politically possible to do anything).

So, for any given individual, it may or may not mean that. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less, and it can be hard to predict what'll happen for a given individual or for the average.

This was my point, your comment flat out said that you will no longer have to pay more because of people without insurance. The truth is you will not be paying less, so that means your point of "I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me" wasn't really valid.

As I've said, I'm all for true universal healthcare. ACA is not that. ACA just forces people to buy private health insurance with no reason for prices to ever come down.

I don't see it as "you're forced to buy a policy simply because you're alive".

I see it as "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me".

Doesn't this mean I, as someone who has had health insurance, should be paying significantly less once ACA goes into effect, as I will no longer be paying for those things?

It could mean that in some world where the only change was "more people paying into the system".

There are, however, changes beyond "more people paying into the system". The whole thing involves a bunch of messy compromises (without which it may not have been politically possible to do anything).

So, for any given individual, it may or may not mean that. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less, and it can be hard to predict what'll happen for a given individual or for the average.

This was my point, your comment flat out said that you will no longer have to pay more because of people without insurance.

Sigh. No, it really didn't. Re-read it. You're interpreting it to mean that, but I never wrote (or meant) precisely that.

(And, I believe I am going to be paying less "for that" than I was before, with "that" being "emergency room care for the uninsured". I'll also probably be paying more for other things, though. I don't yet know how the total will work out over time. We'll have to see.)

The whole thing is a ball of compromise. I am going to be paying less than I would have if that whole ball of compromise had been more or less intact, leaving out only the "individual mandate" part of it. That should be enough reason to insist on the individual mandate part (unless we're going to let people just die -- which we're probably not).

"This part of the whole ball of wax is there to reduce this kind of cost" is just not the same as "given that the whole ball of wax includes this part, the total cost will be lower than it was before the ball".

I don't see it as "you're forced to buy a policy simply because you're alive".

I see it as "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me".

Doesn't this mean I, as someone who has had health insurance, should be paying significantly less once ACA goes into effect, as I will no longer be paying for those things?

It could mean that in some world where the only change was "more people paying into the system".

There are, however, changes beyond "more people paying into the system". The whole thing involves a bunch of messy compromises (without which it may not have been politically possible to do anything).

So, for any given individual, it may or may not mean that. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less, and it can be hard to predict what'll happen for a given individual or for the average.

This was my point, your comment flat out said that you will no longer have to pay more because of people without insurance.

Sigh. No, it really didn't. Re-read it. You're interpreting it to mean that, but I never wrote (or meant) precisely that.

(And, I believe I am going to be paying less "for that" than I was before, with "that" being "emergency room care for the uninsured". I'll also probably be paying more for other things, though. I don't yet know how the total will work out over time. We'll have to see.)

The whole thing is a ball of compromise. I am going to be paying less than I would have if that whole ball of compromise had been more or less intact, leaving out only the "individual mandate" part of it. That should be enough reason to insist on the individual mandate part (unless we're going to let people just die -- which we're probably not).

"This part of the whole ball of wax is there to reduce this kind of cost" is just not the same as "given that the whole ball of wax includes this part, the total cost will be lower than it was before the ball".

So when you said

Quote:

I see it as "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me".

you didn't mean that you were currently paying to help people with those emergencies ("I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies") and that you were paying more than you would be do it ("I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me").Really?Maybe I misunderstood those exact quotes and they meant something else. Never mind then.

Maybe I misunderstood those exact quotes and they meant something else. Never mind then.

Yeup!

You're trying to take a narrowly-focused part of the thing and extrapolate from that to the larger, more complex thing as if nothing else were going on. That doesn't work.

The individual mandate is partially a cost-saving measure, especially for folks like me (paying upper-middle class taxes and with a relatively high-end health plan). It is. (It's also a "fairness-increasing" measure, because it's making people who are getting a benefit start to pay something for that benefit.)

But since it's not the only thing going on, it's completely incorrect to conclude that you'll be able to point directly at simply-defined net cost-savings in the final outcome.

That doesn't mean that it's not a cost-saving measure. It means we're talking about a complex thing with a lot of moving parts. It's still correct to talk about that piece as a cost-saving measure.

(I don't quite get why that reasoning seems to be hard for some folks to follow.)

Maybe I misunderstood those exact quotes and they meant something else. Never mind then.

Yeup!

You're trying to take a narrowly-focused part of the thing and extrapolate from that to the larger, more complex thing as if nothing else were going on. That doesn't work.

The individual mandate is partially a cost-saving measure, especially for folks like me (paying upper-middle class taxes and with a relatively high-end health plan). It is. (It's also a "fairness-increasing" measure, because it's making people who are getting a benefit start to pay something for that benefit.)

But since it's not the only thing going on, it's completely incorrect to conclude that you'll be able to point directly at simply-defined net cost-savings in the final outcome.

That doesn't mean that it's not a cost-saving measure. It means we're talking about a complex thing with a lot of moving parts. It's still correct to talk about that piece as a cost-saving measure.

(I don't quite get why that reasoning seems to be hard for some folks to follow.)

I understand now, when you said, "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me" you didn't actually mean that you are paying more than you should be, because if you were paying more than you should be your cost would go down once the reason behind your inflated cost are removed.

It makes no sense to say, "If I was paying for X and am no longer paying for X my payment should be smaller." It isn't a cost-savings measure, even though you were paying an inflated amount due to a specific situation that will be eliminated, because that same cost will just be allocated elsewhere. It makes perfect sense, I appreciate your clarification.

In the future, if you don't want to imply you will be paying less, don't base your argument on statements saying what you are supporting will remove a specific cost, like other people's emergency room visits.

Maybe I misunderstood those exact quotes and they meant something else. Never mind then.

Yeup!

You're trying to take a narrowly-focused part of the thing and extrapolate from that to the larger, more complex thing as if nothing else were going on. That doesn't work.

The individual mandate is partially a cost-saving measure, especially for folks like me (paying upper-middle class taxes and with a relatively high-end health plan). It is. (It's also a "fairness-increasing" measure, because it's making people who are getting a benefit start to pay something for that benefit.)

But since it's not the only thing going on, it's completely incorrect to conclude that you'll be able to point directly at simply-defined net cost-savings in the final outcome.

That doesn't mean that it's not a cost-saving measure. It means we're talking about a complex thing with a lot of moving parts. It's still correct to talk about that piece as a cost-saving measure.

(I don't quite get why that reasoning seems to be hard for some folks to follow.)

I understand now, when you said, "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me" you didn't actually mean that you are paying more than you should be, because if you were paying more than you should be your cost would go down once the reason behind your inflated cost are removed.

It's true that the cost should go down if the thing I'm buying in the future is the same as the thing I'm buying in the past. (I am paying more than I should be for that specific thing. Which is not the same as "in general".)

But, I understand that that's not the case here. It's a component in a bunch of moving parts.

Quote:

It makes no sense to say, "If I was paying for X and am no longer paying for X my payment should be smaller." It isn't a cost-savings measure, even though you were paying an inflated amount due to a specific situation that will be eliminated, because that same cost will just be allocated elsewhere.

Here's where I disagree:

Let's agree that cost "will just be allocated elsewhere", but, if not for the individual mandate, I'd essentially still be paying that cost too, and the cost to me for that would be higher than otherwise.

Regardless of what the payout is, having more people pay in is a cost-saving measure for me. If it's applied the same time as something else that increases costs, the net effect could be that my costs go up. That piece is still a cost-saving measure. (It's simply "used up before I can see it", by other costs that are increasing. Take that measure away and I will see higher costs.)

Edit: here's perhaps a metaphor that'll help get my point across. Let's say my weekly grocery trip involves buying steaks. Let's say that I switch from buying poor quality steaks to buying beer-fed organic kobe beef. Let's say I didn't have coupons for the poor quality steaks, but do have coupons for the kobe beef. Using those coupons is itself a cost-saving measure, even if both the amount I spend on beef and the total grocery bill end up much higher. Yes?

THAT is the choice that is missing in the health insurance debate. And as mentioned above, the option to "leave the country" is no more reasonable now than when Conservatives said it in the 60s and 70s about the Vietnam War.

I cannot for the life of me, understand how people are not getting this. It is hypocritical of you, in a black and white fashion, to suggest that everyone has a choice whether or not to drive and then in the same breath say you don't have a choice to pay for healthcare. It is the same black and white logic.

I need to drive in order to feed my kids, I need to pay for insurance. If you say I have a choice then I say you have a choice about whether or not to pay for health insurance. Just like I can choose to not drive and let my kids starve you can choose to not have health insurance and drive to Mexico. This is irrefutable.

People in the 30's were dead set against Social Security as well. People will typically vote against their own self-interest if enough tribalism and/or fear is used.

I have to agree.

Arguing that it's you constitutional right to not have any access to healthcare is at best short sighted. It's a basic necessity of life and even if you disagree with how it's being implemented you still need to be able to get antibiotics and flu shots and stuff.

I live in a country with socialised healthcare, and even the extreme right has never, ever, ever tried to get rid of it. It's insane to me that anyone can genuinely argue that any move towards poor people being able to see doctors is a bad thing.

What happened to the US to create this kind of vitriolic hatred of the poor? What happened to your political system that significant numbers of people would stand up and say that people in poverty SHOULD have to die of pneumonia?

This isn't even an argument about which is the correct way to get services to people. It's one side saying we should do something, and because it was that sides idea the other side screams no. It's so depressing.

I cannot for the life of me, understand how people are not getting this. It is hypocritical of you, in a black and white fashion, to suggest that everyone has a choice whether or not to drive and then in the same breath say you don't have a choice to pay for healthcare. It is the same black and white logic.

I need to drive in order to feed my kids, I need to pay for insurance. If you say I have a choice then I say you have a choice about whether or not to pay for health insurance. Just like I can choose to not drive and let my kids starve you can choose to not have health insurance and drive to Mexico. This is irrefutable.

I NEVER said "everyone" has a choice to drive. Did you miss the part where I already agreed that yes, YOU have to drive and buy insurance?

Why do you continue to ignore the FACT that OTHERS take public transportation and DON'T have to buy the insurance?

Maybe I misunderstood those exact quotes and they meant something else. Never mind then.

Yeup!

You're trying to take a narrowly-focused part of the thing and extrapolate from that to the larger, more complex thing as if nothing else were going on. That doesn't work.

The individual mandate is partially a cost-saving measure, especially for folks like me (paying upper-middle class taxes and with a relatively high-end health plan). It is. (It's also a "fairness-increasing" measure, because it's making people who are getting a benefit start to pay something for that benefit.)

But since it's not the only thing going on, it's completely incorrect to conclude that you'll be able to point directly at simply-defined net cost-savings in the final outcome.

That doesn't mean that it's not a cost-saving measure. It means we're talking about a complex thing with a lot of moving parts. It's still correct to talk about that piece as a cost-saving measure.

(I don't quite get why that reasoning seems to be hard for some folks to follow.)

I understand now, when you said, "you're forced to buy a policy, because I'm forced to help you survive medical emergencies, and I'm sick of paying more for that than it should cost me" you didn't actually mean that you are paying more than you should be, because if you were paying more than you should be your cost would go down once the reason behind your inflated cost are removed.

It's true that the cost should go down if the thing I'm buying in the future is the same as the thing I'm buying in the past. (I am paying more than I should be for that specific thing. Which is not the same as "in general".)

But, I understand that that's not the case here. It's a component in a bunch of moving parts.

Quote:

It makes no sense to say, "If I was paying for X and am no longer paying for X my payment should be smaller." It isn't a cost-savings measure, even though you were paying an inflated amount due to a specific situation that will be eliminated, because that same cost will just be allocated elsewhere.

Here's where I disagree:

Let's agree that cost "will just be allocated elsewhere", but, if not for the individual mandate, I'd essentially still be paying that cost too, and the cost to me for that would be higher than otherwise.

Regardless of what the payout is, having more people pay in is a cost-saving measure for me. If it's applied the same time as something else that increases costs, the net effect could be that my costs go up. That piece is still a cost-saving measure. (It's simply "used up before I can see it", by other costs that are increasing. Take that measure away and I will see higher costs.)

Edit: here's perhaps a metaphor that'll help get my point across. Let's say my weekly grocery trip involves buying steaks. Let's say that I switch from buying poor quality steaks to buying beer-fed organic kobe beef. Let's say I didn't have coupons for the poor quality steaks, but do have coupons for the kobe beef. Using those coupons is itself a cost-saving measure, even if both the amount I spend on beef and the total grocery bill end up much higher. Yes?

I think you just over complicated the idea which is why it didn't come through too clearly.

A better way to think of it is like buying beer for a party.

There's ten people, and we put in ten bucks each. We buy a hundred bucks of Pabst, but some people drink more than others, but we all share the cost. Sometimes I'll want to drink lots, sometimes I'll hardly drink any, but the cost to me is always ten bucks.

I could be hideously selfish and refuse to pay my share when I'm not drinking, because why should I give my hard earned money up for some other guy to enjoy it? On the other hand I could take a rather more long term view of it. If I loose my job and I want to get hammered, but ten bucks is all I have, my buddies will look out for me, because I always looked out for them.

The whole idea is that society can collectively look after everyone if we all chip in. You might not need healthcare today and think that paying these premiums is stupid because you're invincible, and in the mean time you can spend all that cash on cool stuff you want. And then you get hit by a car or wind up with cancer. And it costs you more than your house is worth just to stay alive.

You can choose to be a decent human being, and understand that what goes around comes around, or you can be a selfish jerk and scream that you paying to keep some other guys kid with failing kidneys alive is somehow against your rights.

public transportation is paid for by taxes that you pay to the state/town/county/etc(plus whatever is left over, normally a small fee to actually sit on the bus... lets call it the copay).i dont use public transportation so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

healthcare is paid for by either your insurance premiums(plus whatever is left over to actually be charged to you, also called the copay) or is paid for by taxes if you do not have insurance.I dont pay for health insurance, so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

but i pay the portion of taxes that go towards public transportation, so why shouldnt you pay the tax for the portion that goes towards healthcare?

I've already said we ALL pay a portion of our taxes for stuff we don't agree with so can we move off that point?

Having a portion of my taxes (or premiums) go to protect others is NOT what I'm arguing against. If that were the point of all this, why didn't Obama simply raise all our taxes to pay for nationalized healthcare?

Instead, he used some vague "general welfare" argument to force us to buy a product, something it had never done before. THAT is what I'm arguing against -- we have no choice BUT to buy this.

And SCOTUS has ruled that is OK. So what is next? Forcing me to buy nursing home insurance? After all, wouldn't that also be "a good thing"? How about disability insurance? Wouldn't that also be "a good thing"? Where does it stop?

I cannot for the life of me, understand how people are not getting this. It is hypocritical of you, in a black and white fashion, to suggest that everyone has a choice whether or not to drive and then in the same breath say you don't have a choice to pay for healthcare. It is the same black and white logic.

I need to drive in order to feed my kids, I need to pay for insurance. If you say I have a choice then I say you have a choice about whether or not to pay for health insurance. Just like I can choose to not drive and let my kids starve you can choose to not have health insurance and drive to Mexico. This is irrefutable.

I NEVER said "everyone" has a choice to drive. Did you miss the part where I already agreed that yes, YOU have to drive and buy insurance?

Why do you continue to ignore the FACT that OTHERS take public transportation and DON'T have to buy the insurance?

I DO NOT have a similar choice to respect to healthcare insurance.

Just because SOME people opt to choose public transportation doesn't negate the fact that, for others, that is essentially a non-option. They are, for all intents and purposes, two completely separate groups of people. Their situations are utterly different. The circumstances in some people's lives have made the option of not driving, and thereby avoiding having to buy insurance, so inordinately difficult and inconvenient that they are "forced" to buy insurance, though they still technically have the option to not. We are all essentially in the "have no choice but to drive" group; that's how the situation is. You still technically have the option to not buy health insurance; it's just an inordinately difficult and inconvenient option.

Or, put it this way. People who have a job in a city with no usable public transportation are forced to drive if they want to continue living in that city and earning an income from that job. If they don't want to drive they can change cities or jobs or simply be unemployed.

People who live in the United States and earn an income are forced to buy health insurance. If you do not want to buy health insurance, you can leave the country, get a job that provides insurance, or simply be unemployed.

If YOU have to take public transport and not ME, why do my taxes have to subsidize YOUR public transit? I DO NOT have a similar choice with respect to publicly funded transportation.

At the risk of repeating myself: I've already said many times in this thread that I am perfectly OK with a portion of my taxes paying for things I don't use myself or otherwise support (abortions, for example).

People who live in the United States and earn an income are forced to buy health insurance. If you do not want to buy health insurance, you can leave the country, get a job that provides insurance, or simply be unemployed.

I've addressed this. Where does it stop Marcus? Should the gov't force everyone to buy nursing home insurance? Should the gov't force everyone to buy disability insurance?

Aren't both of those "good things" that we should all support?

Should the government force me to eat spinach, else make me pay a fine?

The problem with the SCOTUS decision is, if the government can make me buy healthcare insurance, it can make me buy anything.

People who live in the United States and earn an income are forced to buy health insurance. If you do not want to buy health insurance, you can leave the country, get a job that provides insurance, or simply be unemployed.

I've addressed this. Where does it stop Marcus? Should the gov't force everyone to buy nursing home insurance? Should the gov't force everyone to buy disability insurance?

Aren't both of those "good things" that we should all support?

Should the government force me to eat spinach, else make me pay a fine?

The problem with the SCOTUS decision is, if the government can make me buy healthcare insurance, it can make me buy anything.

Is there a compelling government interest in forcing you to eat spinach? Or in buying nursing home insurance? I don't think there is. There is a fairly compelling government interest in ensuring everyone has health coverage.

Of course I'd much rather have just gone single-payer, but something something communism.

At the risk of repeating myself: I've already said many times in this thread that I am perfectly OK with a portion of my taxes paying for things I don't use myself or otherwise support (abortions, for example).

THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE!

The issue is the mandatory nature of buying the insurance.

I'm done.

Oh my god man! Why do you loath the mandatory nature of buying the insurance but are OK with the mandatory nature of paying for abortions (to use your example)?

I may not agree with ACA as implemented but this kind of crap is stupid. If people want to sign up good for them, if they want to laugh at what is considered "affordable" sure go laugh but preventing legitimate sign ups vs going through the appropriate legislative methods is against the american way.

PS Yeah the supreme court is always right i mean just look up some of the older slavery cases or womens rights cases... They can and have been wrong. Its not a tax, it has become a rule for living in this country or forced purchases... sorry just the way I feel.

public transportation is paid for by taxes that you pay to the state/town/county/etc(plus whatever is left over, normally a small fee to actually sit on the bus... lets call it the copay).i dont use public transportation so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

healthcare is paid for by either your insurance premiums(plus whatever is left over to actually be charged to you, also called the copay) or is paid for by taxes if you do not have insurance.I dont pay for health insurance, so i shouldnt have to pay that portion of my taxes.

but i pay the portion of taxes that go towards public transportation, so why shouldnt you pay the tax for the portion that goes towards healthcare?

I've already said we ALL pay a portion of our taxes for stuff we don't agree with so can we move off that point?

Having a portion of my taxes (or premiums) go to protect others is NOT what I'm arguing against. If that were the point of all this, why didn't Obama simply raise all our taxes to pay for nationalized healthcare?

Because, unlike what the RW would like people to believe, Obama isn't actually a dictator that can push through any legislation he wants.

He's also not as progressive as many on the left would like, given that they would have liked to see a single-payer, tax-supported health insurance system.

Quote:

Instead, he used some vague "general welfare" argument to force us to buy a product, something it had never done before. THAT is what I'm arguing against -- we have no choice BUT to buy this.

You have as much choice as you do with regard to paying any other tax on your income. The fact that it isn't necessarily directly proportional to your income does not mean it's not a tax.

Quote:

And SCOTUS has ruled that is OK. So what is next? Forcing me to buy nursing home insurance? After all, wouldn't that also be "a good thing"? How about disability insurance? Wouldn't that also be "a good thing"? Where does it stop?

Ah, the good old slippery slope. It's listed under 'fallacies' for a reason.

Maybe someone can explain to me then what it means in the U.S. Constitution to "promote the general Welfare" then, because it sure seems to me that having accessible, affordable, continuous health care is very important to the general Welfare of the people.

The argument is that Obamacare makes the situation worse for many, many more people than it helps, while doing little or nothing to assuage the actual COST of providing healthcare in the first place. It effectively functions as a price cap, which produces shortages, as opposed to a subsidy, like what we do with agriculture, which produces oversupply and low prices.

Contrary to popular belief, NO ONE is arguing that we shouldn't help people get healthcare. They're saying that Obamacare does more harm than good towards that goal. And with all the issues - even beyond the website - of people being dropped, etc. and what is yet to come when the employer mandates hit next Fall, it's getting clearer and clearer that there may be something to it.

Uh, you are very, very in the wrong here. There is a non-trivial percentage of the Tea Party specifically that subscribes to the Randian vision that if you can't afford health care, you don't deserve it. And have said so point-blank.

I agree a single-payer system would be preferable, but this is still a step up from what we had.

What kind of monster would WANT to deny someone healthcare? A Republican! Oh please.

You're falling for your own side's dehumanization of the "other" side. The oldest propaganda trick in the book is still very effective if you don't consciously avoid it. And for the record, there are republican health care plans - several of them, in fact. That you're unaware of them speaks to your own ignorance of the both sides of the debate. I suggest you get your information from less biased sources, or at least, make sure you're hearing both sides of the argument.

That being said, because the Supreme Court isn't always right, doesn't by default make this a hugely erroneous judgement. It was a 5-4 decision. That means almost as many thought it was wrong as right.Some would, depending on the side of the fence they're sitting on would call that a win. It's a win if you agree with it, wrong if you don't. Or maybe you take the point of view that it's WRONG regardless. By a 5-4 decision it's the LAW and will be until such time as it's overturned, as was the Brown v Board of Ed decision, Citizens v. United, the Dredd Scott decision et.al.

And it was still decided by a conservative majority court of which the Chief Justice (Roberts - a conservative) decided with the majority. Now, if the goal all along has been for a conservative majority, who then reaches an unpopular decision in the eyes of most conservatives who endorsed some of the same conservatives who supported that decision, maybe what's needed is a better barometer of conservative judgement. Or just maybe the critics here are wrong. Perhaps this was the best possible decision. Because the Supreme Court has been wrong doesn't mean THIS is one of those moments.

Regarding plans proposed, what then stopped a republican majority from passing them under a republican president?

Maybe there was a good reason. Maybe not.

It won't be the first time past plans have been touted by either side with no real chances or prospects ofpassing simply to have said, we had something on the table.

Perhaps it was democratic filibusters (SHOCK) which prevented them from coming to a vote.

I'll plead ignorance at not being aware of them. As to what prevented them from being voted on, passed, signed into law, all too often, there's a rest of the story.

That's why I have a REALLY hard time taking sides on such issues. It's common to leave out, sugar coat, or otherwise slant the facts.

Either way, Obamacare has passed and for all intents is currently law. Now, if this had been democrats doing the same thing, it would be equally wrong. And republicans would no doubt call them on it and democrats would most likely deny it or disavow themselves of it. Won't be the first time that's happened either.

I simply think the tactic itself is wrong. And I think Obamacare is the wrong target. I'm old enough to remember the old "Harry and Louise" ads. Clinton proposed health care was defeated, back in the 90's.That was, oh, about 20 years ago. More than enough time for determined efforts on serious proposals to under democratic OR republican majorities to gain traction if not for the decades preceding in which NOTHING happened despite comparable efforts.

It's one thing for a politician to say they REALLY want something to happen.

When no one is holding you back and NOTHING happens. That's far less credible. Republican and Democratic majorities are cases in point. When you have a republican majority AND a republican president failure to do what was an absolute necessity when in the minority stretches credibility - case in point - Term Limits. Another case in point - campaign funding. Another case in point - voting laws. Another case in point - gerrymandering.

Those who want an absolutely fair system that neither gives or their opponent an unfair advantage are in the minority - certainly within the parties if not the population at large.

You can accuse me of not being armed with the facts. Fair accusation.

Even as I make a concerted effort to be informed of the facts it's not a simple task given the emphasis on winning over the truth.

So, I plead guilty. You'd like to blame me. Go ahead. Convenient as it may be, it's just not that simple.

And civil disobedience is one thing. Dirty tricks are yet another. And privilege as well as justice denied by an intentionally discriminatory system is yet another.

As is regardless of whether or not one agrees with Obamacare, the efforts or lack thereof to enact credible legislation aimed at fixing a broken system. There's too much devil in the details, too much Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" in the plans.

Obama got to the finish line first.

Why not just make it better?

Likely no other plan is perfect. Any other plan is likely to get us to the same place of equal opportunity like and dislike. Rightfully or wrongfully so.

Think that's wrong? Go ahead, pass something you think is better and get it signed into law.

I've never asked anyone to agree with me. All I ask is that you understand my position as well as you understand your own. (or in many people's case, understand BOTH positions better... lol) Once you can make an argument for either side without resorting to demonizing your opponent, THEN make your decision. Because, honestly, both sides DO want people to be better off. Of course, there are a very few bad apples, but neither side has any more of those than the other.

If you believe that your political adversaries are "evil" people, no matter what side you're on, then you are wrong, and you really don't know much about your position or theirs.

"Once you can make an argument for either side without resorting to demonizing your opponent, THEN make your decision."

One of the best quotes I've heard, and try to keep in mind in heated discussions is to rememberthat, as strongly as you may feel about your own position, know that those who hold the opposingview feel equally strong about their own position and the certainty that they are right and you arenot.

That doesn't speak to the effort to be informed, as informed as possible of the possible points ofview and their merits.

I think you made that point quite clearly.

To which I would add (quote - David Horsey, Pulitzer prize winning editorial cartoonist, of one of his professors):

"Something isn't true just becausean expert says it's true."

"Something isn't true just becauseyou agree with it"

"Be careful of your narrative. Don't let your narrative get in the way ofthe facts."

"You have a right to feel insulted.You do not have a right to be mean."

I repeat it whenever I get the chance because I think it's relevant and useful to remember. Such observations help to keep me grounded in the midst of discussions such as this.

I'm not talking about where to live, I'm talking about LIVING. If you live, you must buy healthcare or pay a fine. THAT sounds like a tax on living, something you have no choice in. And earning an income is elective -- many people don't work by choice.

Under this law, they will STILL have to buy insurance or face a fine (i.e., a tax on living).

You're not obligated to live in the US.

OK.

I remember when the Right used to say "America: love it or leave it". The Left didn't take too kindly to that invitation.

So now, ACA supporters are saying if you don't like Obamacare, you can live somewhere else?

To quote Associate Judge Robert Jackson:We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."Pardon me if this has been said. My head is spinning after 3/12 pages already.Nature Lover

So obamacare is hell, end of democracy and Obama is Hitler combined with the worst part of Stalin ? And one's duty is to destroy it at all cost ? Isn't that a little abusive, whatever the opinion on the subject ?

The writer has it all wrong. no one has a right to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is - BY DEFINITION - flagrant and outright disobedience to a law. It is OPENLY refusing to obey a law one finds objectionable, or defying some other law (e.g. shutting down a recruiting center, blocking a street) in protest of the objectionable law.

Civil disobedience demands that the person performing the act stands up and takes responsibility for that act even if it means going to jail for it. CD is a protest within the system. You have a human right to CD, and the government has a legal right to arrest you for it. It is in the dignity of individual putting him/her-self on the line in which CD has its moral force. Did not Thoreau say to Emerson (?) "On the contrary my dear friend, what are YOU doing out there?"

Anonymous DOS attacks are not CD. They are cowardly acts of sabotage in which the attacker puts himself above the law of the land. Instead of having faith in the system one sets oneself above the system as the sole arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. There is little difference between such a person and the Taliban shooting someone they believe to be guilty of heretical behavior and what the writer is doing. It is only a matter of degree.

Writer - do not insult those honest protestors who have put their own personal well being on the line with your cowardly act. Chain yourself to the doors of the administration building until you taken to jail. Or put your offer out for what it is. I myself have seen incarceration for protests. You are merely a self-righteous coward.

Regarding this incident isn't there something similar to be said,perhaps,

Big, Public, Secure - pick two.

I'm no criminologist, but, as sure as Willie Sutton robbing banksbecause "That's where the money is" isn't the current behemoth thatis our wired and wireless technology - 24x7x365 anytime / anywhereinformation a similar kind of "attractive nuisance" that whether it'shealthcare.gov or what have you, a direct dedicated attack or collateraldamage in the form of a downed system in which a component of saidsystem was the goal and widespread outage the result - whether intentionalor not, haven't there always been criminal acts, criminals in search of targets?

At some point it was on foot, then by horse, then, by car, now by computer.

Pogo updated for the 21st century.

From a law enforcemnt perspective and legal interpretation - wrong.

Throw in partisan politics, a dash of malevolence, a touch of fight club, and some modest expertise,

Is this really unexpected?

Isn't then righteous indignation a bit of an over the top reaction?

The smartest guys in the room either think it won't or can't happen to them.

Re: the civil disobedience/sit-in argument. If your demonstration blocks access to a place people are trying to go, you are denying them their rights. You get put in jail. And if you are young, scruffy, or left-wing, you typically get maced and clubbed a few times as a preface to jail. The DDOS people are criminals no matter what reason they give for committing their crimes. All of the above should happen to them. (And they could be traced, but no one will bother.)

Re: the constitutionality argument. All judges are activist judges. The people who comprise the majority on this particular supreme court are dunces - one of them apparently thinks he can time travel telepathically back into the minds of the lawyers, businessmen and pols who wrote the constitution - so the constitutionality of any of their decisions is a coin toss. But some dork who can create a DDOS script is extremely unlikely to have any valid constitutional opinions whatsoever. That's not a coin toss, but a four nines probability.

Re: the riding the bus argument - Some people don't get sick or injured. But they cannot know who they are. They cannot know whether or not they will need massive, read incredibly expensive, medical interventions. So anyone arguing against mandatory medical insurance on the basis that they may not need it or do not want it is merely saying that they want the option to be a deadbeat who lets the insurance rate payers pick up their bill.

Re: whether insurance cost will go up or down argument: Insurance companies are making the decisions on price. Given the fact that they have been raising prices rapidly for the last fifteen years, the price will probably go up. The continued existence of the health insurance companies, responsible for many acts of depraved indifference and for a system that generally sucks, nationally speaking, is the flaw in the Act.

You then get the voters who, like their partisan brothers and sisters in congress, vote down on principle rather than content.

Not really. The issue is rarely extreme partisanism, but rather that a response to a complete lack of evidentiary and logical support often is conflated with being a response to extreme partisanship.

I think you'll find the majority of "majorly voted down" posts on this site are ones expressing a highly opinionated, controversial view point with little objective support, and offering no further credible evidentiary support or even solid supporting logic.

Of course, it's easier to believe these posts were voted down simply because of the position's ideology, but in general it's actually because someone made a shit post in support of a position that wouldn't be well received without some strong supporting evidence, regardless of perceived ideological attachment. I've seen plenty of highly partisan posts of various stances not get voted into oblivion, simply because they really were compellingly and sanely argued. I've even seen two posts supporting the same stance end up with completely different upvote/downvote ratios, where the only real difference was how cogently they were presented.

One of the fastest ways to get downvoted on this site is to start a post with "I know this will get me downvoted" (implying the problem is that the readers who downvote are just biased or "don't get it") and then making a controversial post with no real support other than the author's opinion, while repeatedly implying (or outright stating) anyone with a differing view is stupid/etc without ever showing any definitive faults in the opposing viewpoints themselves. People do this all the time, then make a followup post crowing about how they were proven right about how no one here ever listens to opposing views... because they refuse to understand that the problem isn't the audience, it's them.

See attributional/self-serving biases.

(I'm not contesting the idea that some number of people do downvote/upvote simply out of partisanship some amount of the time, but rather that partisanism alone is why certain posts are downvoted into oblivion)

Meh...This was obviously written by some moron wanting to "make a difference" one way or another but anyone that would think this app run by a few hundred PCs would (or should being the piece of crap the site is) make any difference in site performance is deluded as the author of this impotent program. Sad really.